News   May 02, 2024
14-Tower Brookdale Centre Redevelopment Proposed in Pickering
 276     0 
News   May 02, 2024
Artistry and Architecture Unite as Diamond Schmitt Hosts 7th Annual Silent Auction for Charity
 164     0 
News   May 02, 2024
UrbanToronto to Host Panel Discussion at PM Springfest
 219     0 

Toronto Crosstown LRT | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx | Arcadis

EastYorkTTCFan said:
I don't relly get why we have to add bike lanes to every new project. Queens Quay is a different example as it was a continuation of the Martin Goodman trail. With Bike lanes in the rest of the city does use of them justify their existence, and would or should bike users pay something to the city for the maintenance of them?
Click to expand...

The streets got paved because of the bicycles. Then the automobile took them over, apparently for just themselves. They called us "Muddy York" because it was muddy.

20100822-Eglintonwestfromyonge.jpg

Eglinton west of Yonge Street in 1922.

 
Last edited:
If you take the example of the viva purple bike lanes the simple fact is despite making them hardly anyone uses it. What it has done however is compromise the right turning lane so now if buses or cars stop gridlock ensues. Sure bikes are good, but if there's not enough statistical usage to warrant a separate lane at the expense of the harmony of road traffic I don't think it would be a great idea. Drivers won't simply jump into the ect nor will there be a bloor or downtown level of bicycle traffic anytime within the next decade or so on the Eglinton at grade sections
 
cplchanb said:
If you take the example of the viva purple bike lanes the simple fact is despite making them hardly anyone uses it. What it has done however is compromise the right turning lane so now if buses or cars stop gridlock ensues. Sure bikes are good, but if there's not enough statistical usage to warrant a separate lane at the expense of the harmony of road traffic I don't think it would be a great idea. Drivers won't simply jump into the ect nor will there be a bloor or downtown level of bicycle traffic anytime within the next decade or so on the Eglinton at grade sections
Click to expand...

By that logic, we should get rid of the Viva rapidway too--it's hardly used at all. Most of the day, buses come what, every 15 minutes (if they're not late)? You can drive down a LONG stretch of that rapidway without seeing a single bus on it. Those are 2+ perfectly good lanes, sitting there almost entirely empty, while the traffic lanes are often jam-packed. Even in rush hour there are hardly any buses on it. Compare that to something like the 510 Spadina in Toronto where there are tons of streetcars down the length of it at all times, and clearly this rapidway isn't needed.

But, that's not logical. This rapidway, and the bike lanes, were an incredibly unusual act of foresight in the GTHA. Usually transit here gets built years after it's needed, if at all. Highway 7 has had a few condos go up, but the overall density is still incredibly low...but if you look at all of the buildings under construction right now, plus all of the prime space adjacent to the rapidway+bike lanes that's ripe for intensification, and if you look ahead even a couple of years, yet alone 5 or 10, the local population is slated to rise substantially.

So yes, the bike lanes--and the rapidway, for that matter--are pretty much empty and would be better off, I'd agree, as regular traffic lanes at this very moment. However, in just a few years, they will likely be much more well-used, with many cyclists and with much more frequent Viva service due to the number of condos going up.

And if you look 15 or 25 years into the future, the rapidway will probably be upgraded to an LRT by then, and the bike lanes to cycle tracks, because it'll probably be in such high demand.

We shouldn't built transit that serves the exact demand that's needed on opening day. We do, but it's stupid to do so. We should build transit that has spare capacity for future growth, at least a couple of years before it happens. Examples of where the process "1) build it, 2) have a massive population influx, 3) wait a few years, 4) oh wait we forgot about transit" goes horribly wrong are New Toronto, and Liberty Village, and I'll say it's 99% going to happen again with Queen's Quay East and the port lands due to the Waterfront East LRT being stalled.
 
Megaton327 said:
By that logic, we should get rid of the Viva rapidway too--it's hardly used at all. Most of the day, buses come what, every 15 minutes (if they're not late)? You can drive down a LONG stretch of that rapidway without seeing a single bus on it. Those are 2+ perfectly good lanes, sitting there almost entirely empty, while the traffic lanes are often jam-packed. Even in rush hour there are hardly any buses on it. Compare that to something like the 510 Spadina in Toronto where there are tons of streetcars down the length of it at all times, and clearly this rapidway isn't needed.

But, that's not logical. This rapidway, and the bike lanes, were an incredibly unusual act of foresight in the GTHA. Usually transit here gets built years after it's needed, if at all. Highway 7 has had a few condos go up, but the overall density is still incredibly low...but if you look at all of the buildings under construction right now, plus all of the prime space adjacent to the rapidway+bike lanes that's ripe for intensification, and if you look ahead even a couple of years, yet alone 5 or 10, the local population is slated to rise substantially.

So yes, the bike lanes--and the rapidway, for that matter--are pretty much empty and would be better off, I'd agree, as regular traffic lanes at this very moment. However, in just a few years, they will likely be much more well-used, with many cyclists and with much more frequent Viva service due to the number of condos going up.

And if you look 15 or 25 years into the future, the rapidway will probably be upgraded to an LRT by then, and the bike lanes to cycle tracks, because it'll probably be in such high demand.

We shouldn't built transit that serves the exact demand that's needed on opening day. We do, but it's stupid to do so. We should build transit that has spare capacity for future growth, at least a couple of years before it happens. Examples of where the process "1) build it, 2) have a massive population influx, 3) wait a few years, 4) oh wait we forgot about transit" goes horribly wrong are New Toronto, and Liberty Village, and I'll say it's 99% going to happen again with Queen's Quay East and the port lands due to the Waterfront East LRT being stalled.
Click to expand...

Think every 15 minutes is too long? In Atlanta, their MARTA (subway) service can be every 10, 15, or 20 minutes, depending upon the time of day and which day of the week. Even in New York City, it can be every 10 minutes outside of the rush hours.

Ten minutes is considered "frequent" on the TTC. On the TTC system map, see link, the thick lines indicate 10 minutes or better service.
 
W. K. Lis said:
Think every 15 minutes is too long?
Click to expand...

I think 15 minutes is too long to justify removing 2-3 lanes and making them sit empty most of the time. As I said in my post though, I think the merit of Highway 7 is that it's future-proof for development that is happening now and in the next few years. Ditto for the bike lanes.
 
W. K. Lis said:
Think every 15 minutes is too long? In Atlanta, their MARTA (subway) service can be every 10, 15, or 20 minutes, depending upon the time of day and which day of the week. Even in New York City, it can be every 10 minutes outside of the rush hours.

Ten minutes is considered "frequent" on the TTC. On the TTC system map, see link, the thick lines indicate 10 minutes or better service.
Click to expand...
but normally it is not 10 min. i rarely have had to wait 10 min
 
salsa said:
Metrolinx derails Avenue Station air rights deal worth millions



http://www.torontosun.com/2016/10/01/metrolinx-derails-avenue-station-air-rights-deal-worth-millions
Click to expand...

WTF IS WRONG WITH METROLINX.....??!!!
Despite the potential contruction woes, here is an opportunity to pretty much dump the entire cost of the station on the developer
and do what the rest of the developed world is doing: intensive developing around stations, not this suburban single/townhouse shit that
is killing us. Once again buraucracy at its f_cking finest
 
Megaton327 said:
I think 15 minutes is too long to justify removing 2-3 lanes and making them sit empty most of the time. As I said in my post though, I think the merit of Highway 7 is that it's future-proof for development that is happening now and in the next few years. Ditto for the bike lanes.
Click to expand...

incorrect for the first part about removing lanes....they widened the road so that even former 2 lane stretches of hwy 7 are 3 lanes + ROW+bike lane. The one downside is that they removed most of the right turn lanes which makes turning a bitch in rush hour
 
cplchanb said:
WTF IS WRONG WITH METROLINX.....??!!!
Despite the potential contruction woes, here is an opportunity to pretty much dump the entire cost of the station on the developer
and do what the rest of the developed world is doing: intensive developing around stations, not this suburban single/townhouse shit that
is killing us. Once again buraucracy at its f_cking finest
Click to expand...
well I disagree that single.townhouse.... is killing us. I sure did not see high rise condos In London the 10 days I was there, then travelled to Bath, Cantebury, Stratford-upon-Avon; or Italy - Rome, Florence.

But this developer issue with Metrolinx is crazy. I sure do not get Metrolinx. What do they mean by "project doesn’t currently meet the “transit-oriented” guidelines Metrolinx requires for these developments"? First they have taken their sweet time with this line, stretching things out, the west could have started station construction way before the east was finished tunelling. And now they are worried about delays
 
One has to look at the size and character of the proposed development versus the official plan and all the standard planning criteria - height vs street width, avenues plan, shadows, etc. Developer realises they can 'partner' with ML and slip in a few extra stories and a lot of square feet. I translate the ML statement to mean that there is a different mix of residential vs commercial than they prefer. Whether ML's guidelines make sense or not, we should not let developers use transit as a Trojan Horse for plans that the neighbourhood or the City would otherwise reject.

- Paul
 
Last edited:
cplchanb said:
WTF IS WRONG WITH METROLINX.....??!!!
Despite the potential contruction woes, here is an opportunity to pretty much dump the entire cost of the station on the developer
and do what the rest of the developed world is doing: intensive developing around stations, not this suburban single/townhouse shit that is killing us. Once again buraucracy at its f_cking finest
Click to expand...

If they couldn't get city approval in time and risk dragging down the project then proceeding without it is the right thing to do. You can always sell the air-rights at a later date - in fact you might net more $$$.

AoD
 
Last edited:
you also underestimate the the net potential
yield for selling property that directly connects to rapid transit.
In the grand scheme it will be worth it to developers especially in this case where multiple towers were planned
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top